Filed under: politics | Tags: Ahmadinejad, diplomacy, iran, netanyahu, Obama, posted by elan
This is going to be short and sweet, since I’m dealing with finals right now. Almost done though!
President Obama made a short statement today about the controversial Iranian presidential election. Obama was careful to say that US will not consider, and thinks it innappropriate, to intervene in or even weigh in on, the disputed results. As the Volokh Conspiracy points out this policy stands in direct opposition to Obama’s blatant attempts to change Israeli policy regarding West Bank settlements. Some even accuse Obama of trying to topple the Netanyahu government.
What do you think? Is US putting too much pressure on Israel? (Oznia writer Ron Shapiro thinks so.) What should Obama do and say about the Iranian election incident? Is it right for Obama to apply different methods and philosophies to his diplomatic interactions with Israel and Iran?
Filed under: opinion | Tags: Ahmadinejad, Bush, Cairo, Clinton, Hamas, netanyahu, Nuclear, Obama, posted by ron
At least Clinton is being reasonable.
The world was very excited when the White House changed hands from George W. Bush to Barack Obama. I was one of those, but am no longer in that state of ecstasy, as some of his approaches have been a little questionable, especially in the Middle East.
I do not remember where I heard this, and do not know who to credit the idea, but I love it. President Obama, while dealing with Middle East, is holding diplomats with a higher degree of respect than one would in the United States.
I understand that President Obama wants to give everyone a chance, but does he really believe that EVEN IF Hamas renounced terror, they would stick to their word? Or if Mahmoud Ahmadinejad promised to shut down the Iranian Nuclear Program, would he follow through? We don’t even expect our OWN politicians to deliver everything they promise!
Hamas, for those who don’t know, translates to Islamic Resistance Movement; speaking Obama’s language will never matter, especially when their name implies violence.
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the person who wants to “wipe Israel off the map” and uses rhetoric to deny the Holocaust constantly, will he suddenly claim he has no intention to stop funding Hezbollah, the Islamic Brotherhood, Hamas, and other terrorist groups? And if he does, how should someone believe him?
President Obama also takes a different stance on how to advise Israel. Unlike President Bush who supported Israel nearly unconditionally, President Obama is trying to force his beliefs onto Prime Minister Netanyahu.
By no means do I believe that the American President should support everything Israel does, many times it is important to disagree. However, to take a way a nation’s sovereign right to rule is in no way acceptable.
On one side, I understand President Obama’s reasoning that communities in the West Bank are detrimental to feelings toward peace. And I agree that no new settlements should be built, it obviously is counter productive. And every ‘illegal outpost’ should be eliminated as well. But can President Obama say that natural growth is not allowed? Who’s right is it to tell parents that they may not have children. As Americans, we pride ourselves on being free and having the ability to make our own decisions. Should we become like China and limit childbirth to one per couple?
I am also not ready to just give over the West Bank entire to the Palestinian Authority. Eventually, it is almost impossible to conceive a region where the Palestinians will not have full control over that area, but at the current moment, are they ready? Are WE ready right now? Can we allow the West Bank to become another Gaza Strip and be taken over by Radical Islam?
I know that while President Obama will do great things in his presidency, I am worried by what he may force onto Prime Minister Netanyahu by using the media and speeches like his recent one in Cairo.
At least Secretary of State Clinton is right next to him. When asked if the United States would attack Iran if they were to drop a nuclear bomb on Israel, she replied with, “I don’t think there is any doubt in anyone’s mind that were Israel to suffer a nuclear attack by Iran, there would be retaliation.”
No matter whether Prime Minister Netanyahu decides to employ President Obama’s plan word for word, at least we know that they highest ranking official in the United States Foreign Affairs will protect our homeland.
Filed under: opinion, politics | Tags: barak, barak obama, Emanuel, Obama, posted by samsit, Rahm
If you don’t know who Rahm Emanuel is now, you will soon. The Representative fro the state of Illinois has accepted Barack Obama’s offer to be the new White House Chief of Staff. He led President Clinton’s campaign finances for his 1992 bid for the White House. Going back a little bit further, he is the son of an Israeli who fought in the Irgun during the time of the British Mandate. He went to a Jewish Day School, and volunteered in the Israeli Defense Forces during the Persian Gulf War.
Emanuel is a strong supporter of Israel. He supports AIPAC (Amerian-Israel Public Affairs Committee) and we quote in the Chicago Tribune as saying Israel will not achieve peace until the Palestinians “turn away from the path of terror.” Will this strong supporter of Israel really help Israel? Could his strong views cause him to only act on his emotions towards Israel, without processing the potential outcomes of his actions? That is to say that he might suggest radical plan for Obama without pondering the negative feedback that might be taken out on Israel as a result.
On the other hand his experience that he obtained through his Clinton years and his understanding of the Israeli mindset and the situation in the Middle East will help him make good decisions. As a first time voter in this past week’s presidential election, I can say that I voted for Obama because I believe that he will continue to surround himself with knowledgeable staffers who will make up for his inexperience in political spotlight.
Emanuel on MSNBC on Israel and Obama
Filed under: opinion, politics | Tags: Election, Israel, McCain, Obama, posted by jpachefsky
During the last few weeks of school, I had this constant question in my head: Who will be better for Israel? John McCain or Barack Obama? This is not an easy issue because our next President (with the help of Congress of course) will be a major player in deciding the fate of Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah, and Al Qaeda. Now, just to set things straight, I am not a one issue voter; however, since I have a pretty big connection with Israel and am a first time voter, Israel is one of the bigger concerns on my political palette. In order to help me figure this out, I turned the question to the Discussion Minyan at my school, which I am very involved in. The results were very interesting.
One person even suggested that the next President whether it would be McCain or Obama, would be the next Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton – bringing two sides together to establish a peace agreement. Many students talked about what the different administrations would do for Israel and the peace process, but the general consensus of our discussion minyan was pretty unanimous. There is no way the new president will not be pro-Israel because Isreal is too important to America. Israel is not just the only democracy in the Middle East, but also America’s only reliable ally. Since I am a first time voter, my opinion actually matters, but I know whoever we elect to be our nation’s leader this coming November, our new Mr. President will be pro-Israel.